After decades of persistent efforts – unfortunately successful – in conquering the high ground of economic policy throughout the world, after hijacking vital national and international organizations for its narrow agenda, after aligning itself with dictators and anti-democratic forces in numerous countries, the Church of Friedman has finally come under legitimate fire and is exposed for its real track record. I am talking of course about Klein’s ”The Shock Doctrine”.
One of the junior choir boys of the Church – though he is indeed advertised as ’senior fellow’ (pleez... I'm fully aware that it's merely a pseudo-academic badge of honor) – has been assigned the ungrateful task of defending the righteousness of the crusade. Seldom has a rescue operation failed so miserably. In an article published by the Cato Institute (one of the high profile branches of the sprawling Church), Johan Norberg is making a lame attempt at exonerating the Prophet from the results of his doctrines. We all owe him gratitude for this failure.
The damage Norberg does to his own cause comes not from what he writes in the article, but from what he does not write. The Klein exposure of the modus operandi of the Chicago Boys is not countered in any way. Either he is to lazy to make the effort or he has no arguments. As anyone, save Norberg, is aware of, the central rescue mission ought not to be Friedman the person, but Friedmans’s ideology – dressed up as ’science’ – and its implementation. This does not happen in the article.
It is obvious, from the limited scope of Norberg’s capabilities and efforts, that his argument relies upon that no one reads the original indictment against the Chicago Boys. Rather than taking on Kleins’s damaging account of Friedmanism, Norberg merely tries to dissociate Friedman from his Church and from its clergy of libertarians.
If this is what the Church and its officiants can muster in its defense it is obvious to anyone that the Prophet is naked. The clerics should, in shame, turn their faces away from the spectacle; the rest among us find ample reason to rejoice.
The Moral Economy of Sustainable and Democratic Societies
This is held to be among reasonable and convincing premises for the long term success and survival of liberal and democratic societies:
’In A Theory of Justice, [John] Rawls defends a conception of “justice as fairness.” He holds that an adequate account of justice cannot be derived from utilitarianism, because that doctrine is consistent with intuitively undesirable forms of government in which the greater happiness of a majority is achieved by neglecting the rights and interests of a minority. Reviving the notion of a social contract, Rawls argues that justice consists of the basic principles of government that free and rational individuals would agree to in a hypothetical situation of perfect equality. In order to ensure that the principles chosen are fair, Rawls imagines a group of individuals who have been made ignorant of the social, economic, and historical circumstances from which they come, as well as their basic values and goals, including their conception of what constitutes a “good life.” Situated behind this “veil of ignorance,” they could not be influenced by self-interested desires to benefit some social groups (i.e., the groups they belong to) at the expense of others. Thus they would not know any facts about their race, sex, age, religion, social or economic class, wealth, income, intelligence, abilities, talents, and so on.
In this “original position,” as Rawls characterizes it, any group of individuals would be led by reason and self-interest to agree to the following principles:
(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.’
(from Encyclopædia Britannica, on ’John Rawls’)
Taken as an ideal of policymaking, the above stands in stark contrast to the actual policy processes of today, were MNCs and their self-serving CEOs – "the military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned against – have pocketed legislative bodies across the globe. This may read like populism, but is intended to make us realize the gravity of the current situation, and open up for a discussion on how to reverse these processes.
Again in Eisenhower's words, so different in profundity from the leaders of today: "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
’In A Theory of Justice, [John] Rawls defends a conception of “justice as fairness.” He holds that an adequate account of justice cannot be derived from utilitarianism, because that doctrine is consistent with intuitively undesirable forms of government in which the greater happiness of a majority is achieved by neglecting the rights and interests of a minority. Reviving the notion of a social contract, Rawls argues that justice consists of the basic principles of government that free and rational individuals would agree to in a hypothetical situation of perfect equality. In order to ensure that the principles chosen are fair, Rawls imagines a group of individuals who have been made ignorant of the social, economic, and historical circumstances from which they come, as well as their basic values and goals, including their conception of what constitutes a “good life.” Situated behind this “veil of ignorance,” they could not be influenced by self-interested desires to benefit some social groups (i.e., the groups they belong to) at the expense of others. Thus they would not know any facts about their race, sex, age, religion, social or economic class, wealth, income, intelligence, abilities, talents, and so on.
In this “original position,” as Rawls characterizes it, any group of individuals would be led by reason and self-interest to agree to the following principles:
(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.’
(from Encyclopædia Britannica, on ’John Rawls’)
Taken as an ideal of policymaking, the above stands in stark contrast to the actual policy processes of today, were MNCs and their self-serving CEOs – "the military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned against – have pocketed legislative bodies across the globe. This may read like populism, but is intended to make us realize the gravity of the current situation, and open up for a discussion on how to reverse these processes.
Again in Eisenhower's words, so different in profundity from the leaders of today: "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Aug 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment